tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN March 7, 2013 8:00pm-11:00pm EST
>> senators john mccain and lindsey graham on the senate floor talk about the filibuster. senator rand paul, who led the filibuster, questioned the ability of drone strikes on u.s. citizens on u.s. soil. this is 40 minutes. >> thank you, mr. president. i'd like to quote from this morning's editorial in "the wall street journal", entitled "rand
paul's drone rant." i'd like read, for the edification of my colleagues, the editorial in "the wall street journal" this morning. a credible media outlet. the warm read, quote: give rand paul credit for theatrical timing, as the snowstorm descended on washington, the republican's kentucky old-fashioned filibuster wednesday, filled the attention void on twitter and cable tv, if only his reasoning matched the showmanship. shortly before noon, senator paul began talking filibuster against john brennan's nomination to lead the cia. a fact tick rarely used in the senate and was last seen in 2010. but senator paul said, quote, alarm, had to be sounded to the threat to americans from their
own government. he promised 'ospeak, quote, until the president says, no, he will not kill you at a cafe. he meant by a military drone. he is apparently serious, though his argument is not. senator paul had written the white house to inquire about the possibility of a drone strike against a u.s. citizen on american soil. attorney general eric holder replied the u.s. hasn't, and quote, has no intention to bomb any specific territory. drones are limited to the remotess areas. but as a hypothetical man are ex-mr. holder acknowledged the president can authorize the use of lee that military force within u.s. territory. this shocked senator paul, and invoked the constitution and miranda rights under current
u.s. policy, mr. paul used on the floor jane fonda could have been killed bay missile during her tour of communist hanoi in 1972. a group of noncombatants sitting in public view in houston may soon be pulverized, he declared. calm down, senator, mr. holder is right. even if he doesn't explain the law very well, the u.s. government cannot randomly target american citizens on u.s. soil or anywhere else. i repeat that. the u.s. government cannot randomly target american citizens on u.s. soil or anywhere else. what it can do, under the laws of war, is target an enemy combatant, at anywhere, at any time, including on u.s. soil.
this includes a u.s. citizen who is also an enemy combatant. the president can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity, government, say, or a terrorist network like al qaeda. that has taken up arms against the united states as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict. that does not include hanoi jane. such a conflict exists between the u.s. and al qaeda. so, mr. holder is right. the u.s. could have targeted, say, u.s. citizen anwar awlaki had he continued to live in virginia. the u.s. killed him in yemen before he could kill more americans. but under the law, awlaki was no different than the nazis who came ashore in long island in world war ii and were captured
and executed. the country needs more senators who care about liberty but if mr. pal wants to be taken seriously the needs to do more than pulling stunts that fire up kids in their college dorms. he needs to know what he is talking about. well, mr. president, i've watched some of that, quote, debate, unquote, yesterday. i saw colleagues of mine who know better, come to the floor and voice this same concern, which is totally unfounded. i must say that the use of jane fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me, and i must say that she is not my favorite american. but i also believe that as odious was it was, ms. fonda
acted within her constitutional rights, and to somehow say that someone who disagrees with american policy, and even may demonstrate against it, is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant, is simply false. it is simply false. now, i believe that we need to visit this whole issue of the use of drones, who uses them, whether the cia should become their own air force, what the oversight is. what the legal and political foundations for this kind of conflict needs to be reviewed. and the foundation rests mostly on design for another task, the government lawyers have interpret without public scrutiny to meet new challenges outside the surveillance
context. congress as a body has not debated or approved the men's or ends of secret warfare, secret surveillance and target strikes rather than u.s. military detention are central to the new warfare. there are no viable plaintiffs to test the government's authorities in court in short, executive branch decisions since 2001 have led the nation to a new type of war against new enemies on a new battlefield, without enough focused national debate, deliberate congressional approval or real judiciary review. we probably need a new framework statute, akin to the national security act of 1947, or the series of intelligence reforms made after watergate, or even the 2001 authorization of force. to define the scope of the new
war the authorities and limit takingses on presidential power informs a review of the president's actions. i'm quoting from an article by jack goldsmith in the washington post. the u.s. needs a rule book for secret warfare. i don't think we should have any doubt there are people, both within the united states of america, and outside of it, who are members of terrorist organizations that want to repeat 9/11. all of us thank god there's not been a relead of 9/11. most of the experts i know will say there's been a certain element of luck, but it's more element -- a small element, but an element of luck, such as the underwear bombers and others that have prevented a devastating attack on the united states. but to somehow allege or infer that the president of the united states is going to kill
somebody, like jane ton dark or someone who disagrees with the policies, is a stretch of imagination which is, frankly, ridiculous. ridiculous. so, i don't disagree that we need more debate, more discussion, and, frankly, probably more legislation, to make sure that america does protect the rights of all of our citizens. to make sure at the same time that if someone is an enemy combatant, that the enemy combatant nowhere to hide, not in a cafe or anywhere. but to say that somehow, even though we tried to take that person -- to say wisconsin we would hit them in a cafe with a missile, first of all, there are no drones with hell fire missiles anywhere knee. there's in places like yemen and
afghanistan, and other places in the world. so, we've done a, i think, disservice to a lot of americans by making them believe that somehow they're in danger from their government. they're not. but we are in danger from a dedicated, long-standing, easily replaceable leadership enemy that is hell bent on our destruction, and this leads us to having to do things that perhaps we haven't had to do in other, more conventional wars. and i don't believe that anwar awlaki should have been protected anywhere in the world. but that doesn't mean that they're going to take him out with a hellfire missile. it means we're going to use our best intelligence to apprehend
and to debrief these people so that we can gain the necessary intelligence to bring them all to justice. so, mr. president, all i can say is that i don't think that what happened yesterday is helpful to the american people. we need a discussion, as i said, about exactly how we are going to address this new form of almost interminable warfare, which is very different from anything we faced in the past. but somehow to allege our government would drop a drone hellfire missile on jane fonda, that is -- that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about u.s. policy to the realm of the ridiculous. i'd also like to add an additional note, mr. president.
about 42 of the senators i'm told of the members of this senate are here for six years or less. everytime a majority party is in power, they become frustrated with the exercise of the minority of their rights here in the senate. and back some years ago there was going to be -- we were going to eliminate, when republicans this side of the aisle was the majority, we were going to eliminate the able to call for 60 votes for judges. cop firmation of judges. we put that aside. there was another effort at the beginning of this senate to do away with 60 votes and back down to 51, which, in my view, would have destroyed the senate. a lot of us worked -- a group of us worked very hard for a long time to come up with some compromises that would allow the
senate to move more rapidly but at the same time -- and efficiently but at the same time preserve 60-vote majority requirement on some pieces of legislation. what we saw yesterday, what we saw yesterday, is going to give ammunition to those critics who say that the rules of the senate are being abused. i hope that my colleagues on this site of the aisle will take that into consideration. i note the prepares of the for from south carolina. senator from north carolina is a lawyer, as many of our colleagues know. he has been a military lawyer in the air for reese serve for 20 years. if there's anyone in the united states senate that knows about this issue from a legal technical standpoint, i would ask it its my colleague from south carolina. i would ask my colleague from south carolina, there is any way that the president of the united states could just randomly
attack with a drone or hellfire missile someone without that person being designated a enemy combatant. i don't think, as much as i hate to say it, that applies to jane fonda. >> it's been a very lively debate. this is an important issue. we should be talking about it. i welcome a reasoned discussion. but to my republican colleagues i don't remember any of you coming down here suggest that president bush was going to kill anybody with a drone. i don't even remember the harshess critics of president bush on the democratic side. they had a drone program back then. so what is it all of a sudden that the drone program has gotten every republican so spun up? what are we up to here? i think president obama has in many ways been a very thorough
executive. he has overstepped and gone into the congressional arena by executive order. i think obama cair, a thousand examples of a failed presidency, but there's also some agreement. people are astonished that president obama, senator mccain, is doing many of the things that president bush did. i'm not astonished. i congratulate him. for having the good judgment to understand we're at war. and to my party, i'm a bit disappointed that you no longer apparently think we're at war. not senator paul. he is a man to himself. he has the view that i don't think is a republican view. i them it's a legitimately held libertarian view. you have to remember senator paul is the one senator who voted against the resolution that said the policy of the united states will not be to contain a nuclear capable iran.
it was 90-1. to his credit he felt like that would be provocative and may lead to a military conflict. he'd rather have a nuclear capable iran than use military force, and he said so to his credit. 90 of us thought, well, wewood like not to have a military conflict with iran, but we're not going to contain a nuclear capable iran, senator mccain, because it's impossible. what would happen is if iran got a nuclear weapon, the sunni arab states would want a nuclear weapon, and most of us believe they would share the technology with the terrorists, that would wind up attacking israel or the united states. it's not so much a i fear a missile coming from iran. i fear if they got nuclear weapon or nuclear technology, that would give it to some terrorist organization like they gave ieds to shiites in iraq to
kill americans. so we don't believe in letting them have it and trying to contain them because we believe their association with terrorism is too long and too deep, do dangerous for israel and do take rouse for us, but senator paul to his credit, was okay with that. i just disagree with him. now, as to what he is saying about the drone program, before he had some doubt in his mind as to whether or not we should have killed anwar a.l. walk can i in yemen. an american citizen, one of the military leaders in yemen, who recall yawided asan, had been involved in planning terrorist attacks against u.s. forces. president obama was informed through the military intelligence community channels of anwar aulaqi's existence, all the videos he made supporting gee had and killing americans, and he, as commander in chief,
designated this person as combatant. mr. president, you did what you had the authority to do and i congratulate you for making that informed decision, and the process to get on this target list is very rigorous. i think sometimes almost too rigorous. but now apparently senator paul says at it okay to kill him because we have a photo of him with an rpb on his shoulder, he moved the ball. he is saying now he wants this president to tell him that he will not use a drone to kill an american citizen setting in a cafe, having a cup of coffee. who is not a combatant. i find the question offensive. as much as i disagree with president obama, much as i support past presidents, i do not believe that question deserves an answer.
because as senator mccain said, this president is not going to use a drone against a noncombatant sitting in a cafe anywhere in the united states. nor will future presidents because if they do they will have committed an act of murder. noncombatants under the law of war are protected. not subject to being killed randomly. so, to suggest that the president won't answer that question somehow legitimizes that the drone prams going to result in being used against anybody in this room having a cup of coffee. to me, cheapens the debate, and is something not worthy of -- >> could i ask my colleague a question, especially on that subject. a lot of our friends, particularly senator paul and others, pride themselves on their strict adherence to the constitution and the decisions
of the united states supreme court. isn't it true that as a result of an attack in long island, during world war ii, that american citizen, among others, was captured and hung on american soil, and the united states supreme court upheld that execution because that individual was an enemy combatant. does that establish without a doubt -- >> well, there is -- >> the facts these are combatants and no matter where they are, they are subject to the form of justice as the terrorist in world war ii was. >> it's been a long-held concept in american juris prudence that when an american citizen sides with the enemies of our nation, they can be held, captured and treated as an combatant who has
mitted an -- committed an act of war against our country, not a common cry so in world war ii you had year. map sack tours on long island who has been trying in germany to blow up infrastructure, some in chicago. so they had this elaborate plan to attack us. they came out of a submarine, landed in long island, and the plan was to have american citizens simple thing at the to the nazi cause--- -- sympathetic to the nazi cause, to provide them shelter and comfort. well, the fbi broke that plot up, and they were arrested. the american citizens were tried by military commissions and they were found guilty and a couple executed there has been a case in the war on terror where an american citizen was captured in afghanistan. our supreme court re-affirmed the proposition that we can hold one of our own as an enemy
combatant when they align themselves with the forces against this country. this congress, right after the september 11th attacks, designated authorization to use military force against al qaeda and affiliated groups so the congress has given every president since 9/11 the authority to use military force against al american al qaeda -- and if aulaqi had been treated as enemy combatant if president obamas to that, would be nothing new or novel. what would be november is for us to say if an al qaeda cell was operating in in the yates united states, that's a common crime and the law doesn't apply. it would be the worse situation in the world for the congress to say the united states itself is
a terrorist safe haven when it comes to legal rights. we can blow you up with drone overseas, capture you in afghanistan, hold you under the law of war, but if there's a terror cell operating in the united states, somehow you're a common criminal, we'll read you your miranda rights itch hope you realize there irpatriot missile batteries all over washington that could interdict an airplane coming to attack the capitol or white house or other government facilities. i hope you understand, senator mccain, there are f-1s on three to five minute alert all up and down the east coast, and if there's a vessel coming into the united states, where a plane has been hijacked, or a ship,
and they're taken over a craft and are about to attack us, i hope all of us would agree, using military force in that situation is not only lawful under the authorization to use military force, it's within the inherent authority of the commander in chief to protect us all and should not be construed as an authority to kill somebody in a cafe. it should be construed as a reasonable ability to defend the homeland against a real threat, and the question is, do you feel threatened anymore? i do. i think al qaeda is alive and well. and to all those who have been fighting this war for a very long time, multiple tours in iraq and afghanistan, you tried to keep the war over there so it doesn't come here. to the cells broken up by the cia and fbi, god bless you. we got to be right everytime. they only have to be right once. if you think the homeland is not
in the desire of al qaeda, it is absolutely on the top of their list, and they're recruiting american citizens to their cause, and unfortunately, a few will probably go over to their side. thank god just a few. but to take this debate into the absurd is what i object to. we can have reasonable disagreements about the regulatory nature of the drone program, should be under the department of defense. what kind of oversight congress should have. that's a really good discussion and i'd like to work with others to craft some -- the treatment act before the congress got involved, the executive branch to better handle the detainee issue. the one thing i have been don't about, there's one commander in chief, not 535 and i believe this commander in chief and all future commander in chiefs are unique in our constitution and have an indefensible role to
play when it comes to protecting the homeland and if we have 535 commander in chiefs we'll be less safe and if you turn over military decisions to the court, you've done the ultimate harm to our nation, criminalized the war. so as much as i disagree with president obama, i think you have been responsible in the use 0 of the drone program overseas. you have been thorough in your analysis. i'd like to have more oversight. as to the accusation being leveled against you that, if you don't somehow answer this question, we're to assume you're going to use the drone -- your administration or future administrations would -- to kill somebody who is a noncombatant no intelligence to suggest they're an enemy combatant, sitting in a cafe, by a hellfire missile, is offbase.
one final thought. if there is an al qaeda member, a u.s. citizen, who is helping the al qaeda cause in a cafe in the united states we don't want to blow up the cafe. we want to go inly and grab the person for intelligence purposes. the reason we're using drones in afghanistan and pakistan, we don't have any military presence along the tribal border. so, the reason we're having to use drones is we can't capture people. the preference is to capture them, not to kill them. but there are certain areas where they operate that the only way we can get to them is through a drone strike. >> die just say to my friend, there is scenarios where there could be an extreme situation where it is a direct threat. you could draw many scenarios. a bomb-laden, explosive-laden vehicle, headed for a nuclear power planty. the president of the united states may have to use any asset that the president has in order
to prevent an impending catastrophic attack on the united states of america. that's within the realm of possible scenarios. so, to somehow say that we would kill people in cafes and, therefore, drone strikes should never be used under any circumstances, i believe is a distortion of the realities of the threats we face. as we are speaking, there are people who are plotting to attack the united states of america. we know that. and at the same time, we are ready, as you said, to discuss, debate, and frame legislation which brings us up to date with a new kind of war we're in. but to somehow have a debate and a discussion that we would have killed jane fonda does in my view, a disservice to the debate that needs to be -- ask discussion that needs to be
conducted. >> that's a very good point. i look forward to a discussion about how to deal with a drone program, and it's just a tactical weapon. it is an air platform without a pilot. now, if there is a truck going toward a military base, or nuclear power plant, we have a lot of assets to interdict that truck. maybe you don't need the f-16. i guarantee if there's a hijacked aircraft coming to the capitol, the president could have an f-15 shoot it down and we're ready for that. i suggest one thing. the number of americans killed in the united states by drops is -- by drones is zero. the number of americans killed in the united states by al qaeda is 2,958. the reason it's not two million, 20 million, or 200 million, is
because they can't get the weapons to kill that many of us. the only reason it's 2,958 is because their weapons of choice couldn't kill more. their next weapon of choice is not going to be a hijacked airplane, i fear. it's going to bes' nuclear technology or chemical weapon, a weapon of mass tee -- destruction. that's why we have to be on our guard. and when you capture someone associated with al qaeda, the best thing is to hold them for interrogation purposes because we found bin laden not through torture, my friend, we found bin laden through a decade of putting the puzzle together. and senator durbin, senator mccain, both of you were very effective advocates that we have to live within our values, and when we capture somebody we're going to hold them under the law of war, exploit intelligence but
do it within the laws we signed up to, like the general have no cocoon venges, the convention against torture, so to my friends on this side of the aisle -- >> on the other side of the aisle, it was 12 hours ago when i was standing right here in a lonely voice among others who were discussing this issue, bringing up the points you raised. the first is, the den is -- drone is a weapon. there are many weapons that can deliver lethal force. we should view this as an issue of legal force, not an issue of drones. it is a question of lethal force. the second question has been raised by both senators. what if the fourth airplane had not been brought down for the passengers and if the plane were headed toward the capitol building and all other planes had beenland across america and
we knew this plane was the fourth plane in control 0 of the terrorist. what authority did president bush haves a commander in chief at that moment? i don't think anyone would can he question he had the authority too you lethal fought to stop the terrorist from using that plane as a fourth attack on the united states. and i domestic independent there was any debate last night on this point. this notion, we're somehow going to use drones to kill people sipping coffee in cafes is ludicrous. it is absurd. it goes beyond the obvious. we need those people. bringing those people into our control gives us more information. and secondly, i mean, for goodness sakes, the collateral damage of something that brutish, would be awful. so i thank you for putting it in perspective. i think attorney general hold keir have been more artful in his language, but at the end of the day even senator cruz
acknowledged he said it would be unconstitutional to use this kind of lethal force if there wasn't an imminent threat pending against the united states. >> could i say -- imminent three. >> yes. >> now, we may have to do a little better job of defining that. but to say imminent threat would then translate into killing somebody in a cafe, it's not a mature debate or discussion. >> if i could add, let me tell you about imminent threat and military law. in iraq, you had disabled terrorists, insurgents, and there was a big debate in the marine corps because under military law, when a lawful combatant, a person in uniform, has been disabled, and it doesn't present an imminent threat, you don't have the ability to shoot them. the terrorists in iraq put
ieds on the wounded unlawful combatants. the marine corps wrestled hard with the rules of engame. you come upon something that was wounded and apparently disabled, under which circumstance could you use lee that force because they may be booby-trapped. the marine corps came up with a balance. we don't shoot or enemy if they are wounded. and the ability to enforce. the process of determining who an enemy combatant is has always been a military process. it's not a congressional debate. our committees do not get a list of names and we make a vote on whether or not we think they're an enemy combatant. courts don't have trials over
who an enemy combatant is. there there's a question, you're entitled to a single hearing over and that's all in world war ii there were a lot of people captured in german uniform who claimed they were made to wear the uniform by the german, and all of them had a hearing on the batfield by a single officer. it has been long held in military law that it is a military decision, not a judicial decision or legislative decision to determine the enemy of a nation. so president obama has really taken this far beyond what it was envisioned. this administration has a very elaborate process to determine who should be determined to be an enemy combatant. think it's thorough. it has many checks and balances and as much as i disagree with this president on many issues, i would never dream of taking that right away from him because he is the same person, the commander in chief, whoever he
or she may be in the future, that we give the authority to order american citizen into battle where they die. he has the ability to pick up the phone, senator mccain, and say, you will launch today, and you may not come back. i can't imagine a congress who is okay with the authority to order an american citizen into battle. we don't want to tack that away from him, i hope. to some comfortable with the same person determining who the enemy we face may be. as to american citizens, here's the law. if you collaborate with al qaeda, or their affiliates, and you're engaged in helping the enemy, you're subject to being captured or killed under the law of war. what is an imminent threat? the day you south yourself with al qaeda and become part of their team, everywhere you go and everything you do presents a threat to the country. so, why too we shoot people
walking down a road in pakistan? they don't have a weapon. there's no military person in front of them to threaten. the logic is that once you join al qaeda, you're de facto imminent threat because the organization you're supporting is a threat. so, for someone to suggest we got let them walk down the road, pick up a gun and head toward our soldiers before you can shoot them, it not have healthy for our soldiers and is contortion of the law. >> one last comment and i thank you for this statement on the floor from both of my colleagues. the judiciary, subcommittee, will have a hearing on this issue of drones, and there are legitimate questions to be raised and answers. and i might add, my conversations with the president, he welcomes this. he has invited to us come up with the legal architecture to
make sure it is consistent with what existing, present, military law and court cases and our constitution, and i think that's a healthy environment for us to have this hearing and invite all points of view and try to come up with a reasonable conclusion. >> could not welcome that more. it worked with the detainee treatment act and the military commission act. it's the right way to go. >> if i could make one more request before i leave. madam president, committees meet today during the senate, ask con seen thes we agreed to and printed in the record. >> without objection. >> i think that concludes our discussion, but i would agree, with the senator from illinois and my colleague from south carolina, we need hearings, we need to discuss how we conduct this -- the united states in what appears to be for all
intents and purposes an interm enable conflict we're in and we have to adjust it to. but that conversation should not be talking about killing jane fonda and people in cafes. it should be about authority and what check's balances should exist in order to make it a most effective ability to combat an enemy we know will be with us for a long time. >> could i just have two minutes to wrap up, i will. to my fellow citizens, the chance of you being by a drone because you go to a tea party rally or moveon.org rally or any other political rally, or you're chatting on the internet quietly at home, by your government, through the use of a drone, is zero.
under this administration and future administrations. and if that day ever happened, the president of the united states or whoever ordered such attack would have committed murder and would be tried. i don't worry about that. here's what i worry about. that al qaeda, who has killed 2,958 of us. is going to add to total if we let our guard down, and i will do everything in my power to protect this president, who i disagree with a lot, and future presidents, from having an ill-informed congress take over the legitimate authority under the constitution and the laws of this land to the commander in chief on behalf of all of us, as to any american citizen, thinking about joining up with al qaeda, at home or abroad, you better think twice. because here's what it going to
come your way. if we can capture you, we win. you will be interrogated. you will go before federal judge, and one day you'll go before a court. and you will have a lot of legal rights, but if you're found guilty, woe be unto you, and, here's another possibility. if you join with these thugs and these nuts to attack your homeland, and if we have no ability to capture you, we will kill you. and we will do it because you made us. and the process of determining whether or not you have joined al qaeda is not going to be some federal court trial, it's not going to be a committee meeting in the congress, because if we put the conditions on our ability to defend ourselves we
cannot act in real time bottom line, ladies and gentlemen, i think we're at war. i think we're at war with an enemy who would kill us all if they could and eave war america has been in we've recognized the difference between fighting crime and fighting a war. if you believe as i do we're at war, those who aid our enemies are not going to be treat as if they robbed a liquor store. they're going to be treat as the military threat the are. >> madam president, i thank my colleagues and i also thank the senator from illinois for his engagement and in closing i'd like to congratulate my friend from south carolina for his really best behavior last night at dinner. he was on his best manners, and everyone was very impressed. i yield the floor.
now reaction from the white house. >> senator paul said the white house is talking with his office about a way to resolve his concerns over use of drones on american soil. are those conversations taking place, and does the president have an opinion on whether or not he has the constitutional authority to use drones against american citizens on u.s. soil?
and under which circumstances? >> well, i would say that, of course, the white house is in touch with senator paul's staff and that's true, what senator paul said. let's back up a little bit. first of all, this debate has nothing to do with the qualifications of john brennan senator paul himself said as much yesterday, and as you know, mr. brennan was voted out of the intelligence committee by a wide bipartisan margin and should be promptly confirmed. the country needs cia director and there's wide agreement he is eminently qualified to lead the cia and should be confirmed immediate limit now, senator paul raised questions about the president's authority to use legal force within the united states. which john brennan, and the attorney general, have both answered. today, senator paul raised an additional question. and the attorney general has answered it. and to be crystal clear, i want to be crystal clear about what
senator paul is now asking, i'm going to read from the attorney general's question, responding to the question. it was transmitted to senator paul. and this is from the letter, quote: does the president have the authority to use a weaponnized drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil? the answer is, no. the answer to that question is, no. and that is a letter that is signed by the attorney general and was submitted to senator paul and his office. now, -- >> as to when those drones could be used, would that be a 9/11 or pearl harbor style -- >> step back and say the issue of technology has nothing to do with the legal matters that we're discussing. the president has not and would not use drone strikes against american citizens on american
soil. on the broader question, if legal authorities that exist to use lee that force are bound by and constrained with the law of the constitution. the issue here isn't the technology. the method does not change the law. the president sworn an oath to uphold the constitution and is bound by the law, whether the lethal force in question is a drone strike or a gunshot. the constitution applies the same way. and that's why i think there's been a great deal of confusion about the technology here when the technology is irrelevant to what the law in the constitution says, and the president is bound by the constitution, bound by the laws, and is sworn to uphold them. >> so, when you've said he would never -- you're saying there are no circumstances, because i thought that -- the attorney general talked about a 9/11 or peril -- >> you can make wild
hypotheticals. they don't change the law for the president to uphold the united states, sworn to protect the united states, and in an event like an attack like pearl harbor, or 9/11, obviously the president has the constitutional authority to take action to prevent those kinds of attacks, but that has nothing to do with the technology used to prevent those attacks. it is -- there is no distinction in the law or the constitution with regards to in terms of the authorities invested in the president, or the congress for that matter, when it comes to the methods used to enforce the law. >> contribute to the confusion on this, the original letter to senator paul and. >> you have to ask senator paul. >> -- original language -- to imagine extraordinary circumstance which it would be necessary and appropriate for the president to authorize military use of lethal force
within the territory of the united states. >> hough is -- again, has nothing to do with the methodology here. if there were -- if the united states were under attack or imminent threat, all the same laws that apply to the president's authority apply now, whether it has to do with drones or other nodes you would use to prevent a terrorist attack or pearl harbor. the law is the law and the constitution is the constitution, and i think that is what the attorney general is saying in response to the question senator paul asked the attorney general today, i think the answer is gave you is categorical and clear. the question that senator paul asked, does the president have the authority to use a weaponnize hedren to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil. the answer to that question is, no. >> now, president obama signs the violence against women act which the house passed last week. first authorized in 1994, the
measure protects and supports victim office sexual and domestic violence. one of the bill's awe that auth' 1994 was then senator joe biden. this is 30 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, to introduce the vice president of the united states, please welcome, diane millage. [applause] >> good afternoon. i am known as diane millage and i am a citizen of the indian
tribes in colorado. [cheers and applause] >> when i was 26 years old i dated a nonindian, white man. after six months we were married. my nonindian husband moved into my house on the reservation to my shock, just days after our marriage, he assaulted me. after a year of abuse and more than 100 instances, abuse, slapped, kicked, punched, and living in horrific terror, i left for good. during that year of marriage i called the police many times. i called our southern tribal police department but the law prevented them from arresting and prosecuting my husband because he is nonindian. the county sheriff could not help me because i am a native woman and the beatings occurred on tribal reservation land. after one being my husband
called the tribal police and the sheriff's department himself just to show me no one could stop him. all the time is called the police and nothing was done, only made my ex-husband believe he was above the law and untouchable. my ex-husband told me, you promised this until death do us part so death it shall be. finally, i arrived at my office. i am alive today only because my coworker pushed me out of harm's way and took the bullet in his shoulder. for this crime he was finally arrested. but because he had never been arrested for any other the abuse against me, he was treat as a first time offender. the state prosecutor and him reached a plea agreement of aggravate driving under revoke case. if the bill being signed today were law when i was married it would a have allow mid tribe to arrest and prosecute my abuser. when this bill is signed, the violence against women act will finally reach native american
women like me. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> we thank the president for all he has done for women everywhere. and we thank the vice president for his incredible leadership. he was the leader who wrote the original act and was instrumental in the bill that reauthorizeses and strengthens this important law. it's now my honor to introduce vice president joe biden. thank you. [applause]
[applause] >> thank you very much, diane. thank you. some of you in the audience who are survivors know how much courage it takes to too what diane did. every single time. [applause] >> some people who don't know will say, she just recounted what happened. but every single time you stand and recount what happened, it brings it all back. it brings it all back like a very bad nightmare. but you're speaking out and so many survivors like you are literally saving the lives of so many other women who, god willing, will be able to avoid the abuse that you had to put up
with. i want to thank all the advocates here today. i got a chance to meet in my office with some of you a little bit earlier. not only those on the stage who i again had a chance to meet with, but the many women out in the audience as i look out and see some familiar faces, like, pat and elly and paulette sullivan moore,, from my home state and so many others. you know, those of you who have been around a while with me know that i quote my father all the time who literally would say, the greatest sin that could be committed, the cardinal sin of all sins, is the abuse of power, and the ultimate abuse of power is for someone physically stronger and bigger to raise their hand and strike and beat someone else. in most cases that tends to be a man striking a woman.
or a man or woman striking a child. that's the fundamental premise, and the overarching reason why john conyers and i and others started so many years ago to draft the legislation called the violence against women act. it passed 19 years ago and these that's why we shortly thereafter instituted a hotline where women in distress could call for help. i remember john, when we did the hotline, it was like, well, it will be useful but i'm not so sure how much it will be used. well, truth of the matter is, it's been used a lot and saved a lot of lives. over two million women have had the courage, the courage, to try to get out of earshot of their abuser and escape from the prison of their own home. to pick up that phone and call, call to a line that you had no idea who on the other end was
going to answer, and to say, i'm in trouble. can you help me? can you help me? i love those men who would say, we started this, why don't they just leave? if they had one third the courage those two million women have who picked up the phone and called, not knowing what to expect, would be a whole lot better nation. we build a network of shelters that are immediately available to women in need because we found out that the vast majority of children are homeless on the streets -- nancy knows and others -- were there because their mothers were abused. imagine fleeing for your life with only the clothes on your back and your child in your arms? the shelter was their only lifeline and it's worked.
we also have specialized law enforcement units with trained prosecutors, victim advocates, court personnel 0 who understand the unique challenges of the access, because of all of you in the audience that are here today, we have been able to train judges and train intake officers, so, when the frighten woman shows up in family court and says to the intake officer i want to tell you, speak up, will you? well, guess my -- and they turn around and walk away. because there's only very brief window, as all of you know. a very brief window. again. after a woman screws up the courage, the courage, to ask for help. all these links in the chain have made a difference in the lives of woman. it's one woman, one girl, one person at a time. one case at a time.
[applause] and we do this again. receive given jurisdiction to gravel close over those regardless of whether or not. providing the resources in the state said they can be trained as to how to collect evidence, particularly prosecutions for rape. we bought focused on the tragic and violent to the news lately. i want to point something out. from 20,922,010, 40% of the mass shootings in america other than the celebrated once using, 40% have been shot. the target has been a farmer and
a partner or close family member. so they go into the office, just like that young woman who stood in front of you when your husband came with a loaded pistol to shoot you. 40% are a consequence of domestic violence. there's a strong antivirus program. campuses will have more tools to educate students about violent. when congress passes law, they just didn't renew what i consider a sacred commitment. they strengthen our commitment. i want to thank them. starting off with my old buddy, pat leahy who chairs the committee. [applause] and mike crapo. this would have happened had he not stepped up.
hot black lisa murkowski who is not here, but my friend i don't want to get her in trouble, but i know she really likes me because i like her a lot, senator collins. seriously, republicans come in and standing up in saying this has to be done. silly lu. we do you bathe. [applause] and by the way, if you want a partner to get anything important on, call nancy pelosi. [applause] and steny hoyer and my old daddy -- i hope i'm not leaving anybody out here. but you know, my old buddy, john conyers.
[applause] i'm sure it leaving someone out for which i apologize. we all know we have enough work to do, but will continue to make progress. one of the reasons will make progress is will have at least three more years the president of the united states, my friend, barack obama. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you. please, everybody have to see. i want to thank all of you for being here. i want to thank secretary
salazar, my great friend for leading us into the building. make sure everybody pick out their stray soda cans and stuff afterwards. i want to thank attorney general holder for joining us. [applause] we usually hosed the spell signings at the white house, but there were just too many of you. who helped make this happen. [applause] and you all deserve to be a part of this moment. i want to thank everybody. joe just mention the extraordinary work each and every one of these leaders, both advocates as well as legislators. >> you left out congressman tom cole. [applause]
that everybody on the stage for extraordinarily hard. most of all, this is your day. the day of the survivors. this is your jury. [inaudible] >> i love you back. and this victory shows when the american people make their voices heard, washington license. so i want to join joe and all the members of the congress who came together, got the spill across the finish line. i want to say a special thanks to pat leahy and mike crapo. thank you for your leadership. [applause] i want to give much that took
one more who worked so hard on that. [applause] and i also want to take a minute to thank the senators who a few hours ago took another big step to sensible gun safety reforms by fancying federal contracting bill. [applause] the senate judiciary committee in that legislation to the senate floor that would crack down on folks who buy guns only to turn around and funnel them to dangerous criminals. it is a bill named in part. you remember i told the story about how she marched in the inauguration parade in just a few weeks later have been done down from my house. i urge the senate to get that bill a vote. i urge the house to follow suit i urge congress to move on other
areas that are supported the american people from background checks ticketing assault weapons off our streets. we need to stop the flow and because these families and to many other families really do deserve it though. [applause] finally come i want to thank joe biden for being such an outstanding vice president. [applause] that's right. stand for joe. give it up for joe biden. [applause] shows shows a hard-working vice president. he told me when i asked him to be vice president, he said i don't want to just be sitting around. if i said i promise you i will let you sit around.
just take a key role in forging the conceit he reforms that talk about, largely by working closely with families. he forced the violence against women act 20 years ago, never forgetting who it was all about. so on behalf of everybody here and all the lives you've had a positive impact in touch through the violence against women fact, the survivors alive today because of this law, the women no longer hiding in fear because of this law, the girls growing up worth their right to be free from abuse because of this law. on behalf of them and their families, i want to thank joe biden for making one of country and this one of the causes of his career. [applause] now, as joe said earlier, we've come a long way. back when joe wrote this law,
domestic abuse is too often seen as a private manner that is hidden behind closed doors. it comes to often stayed silent or felt ashamed that they had done something wrong. even when not to the hospital for the playstation, too often they were sent back home within an intervention or support. he felt trapped, isolated and as a result, often ended in greater tragedy. one of the great legacies of this law is that it didn't just change the rules. it changed our culture. and empower people to start speaking up. it made it okay for us as a society to talk about domestic abuse. made it possible for us as a country to address the problem in a real and meaningful way and make clear to victims that they
were not allowed. bayliss had a place to go and people on our side. today because members of both parties worked together, we were able to renew that commitment. reauthorizing the violence against women site something i called for in the state the union address and when i see how quick it got done -- [applause] makes me feel optimistic. because of this bill, will keep in place all the protection that show described and will expand them to cover even more women because this is a country where everybody should be able to pursue their own measure of happiness and live their lives free from fear, no matter who you are, who you love.
that's got to be our priority. [applause] today it's about millions of women, but tons of domestic abuse and sexual missile. we're out there looking for a lifeline, looking for a soul. they will continue to have access to services chauffeurs helped establish 19 years ago. national hotline, network of shelters, protection orders across state lines and because of this bill works and eight housing assistance so no woman has to choose between a violent home and no home at all. but what today is all about. [applause] two days without law enforcement officials like police chief jim jones. [applause] they are the first to respond when a victim calls for help
here because of this though, we continue on the training and support proven so effective in bridging some gaps in actual enforcement of the law that we can bring more offenders to justice. and we are giving law enforcement better tools to investigate cases of rape and which is a consistently underreported crime in our country. helping police officers deliver the most important part of their job. that's what today is all about. today's about women like diane. i'm so grateful diane shared her story. that takes great courage. i noticed that tribal leaders here today and i want to thank you all for fighting so hard. [applause]
indian country as some of the highest rates of domestic abuse in america and one of the reasons the native american are based on tribal lands by an attacker who is not native american, the attacker is immune from prosecution. as soon as i sign this bill, that patents. [cheers and applause] tribal governments have an inherent right to protect their people and now women deserve the right to live free from fear and not us what today is all about.
[applause] today's about all the americans to take discrimination based on orientation and gender identity. clap act so i want to thank sharon who is here. where did she go? the work she's doing with the anti-violent project. sharing and not the other advocate focused on this community can't do it alone and now they won't have to. that's what today is all about. [applause] today is about the who come to rosie hidalgo looking for support. [applause] immigrants who are bit and said domestic abuse.
[applause] imagine the dilemma for so many. if your immigration status is tied to a has-been who b.c. were abuses you. if you're an undocumented immigrant, you may feel there's too much to lose at the violence against women's act already has protection to call the police without fear of deportation and because we fought hard to keep them in place, they remain a lifeline for so many women. that's part of what today is all about. [applause] today is about young women is brought into betrayed by a neighbor when she was 12 years old. i was rescued with the help of an organization led by trafficking survivors. today she's enrolled in college,
working full-time to help at-risk girls stay out of the sex trade. [applause] [applause] so with this bill, we authorized the trafficking date guns act. that's what today is all about. so today's about all the survivors standing on the stage. but it's also about the millions more they represent, that you represent. it's about our commitment as a country to address this problem in every community, every town,
every city as long as it takes. we've made incredible progress since 1994, but we cannot let up. not when domestic violence still kills three women a day. not when one of five will be a big them in their lifetime. not one wanted to raise abuse by a partner. so i promise you, not just as your president, but a sign and it has been a father, i'm going to keep at this. i know vice president biden will keep at it. i know i'll be advocate to appear, although legislators, republican and democrat who supported this, i know they could not be prouder of the work they've done together in a speech or all of them when we say we could not done it without you. so with that, let me sign this.
one of the things in early american wife was taught to do, she supported her husband's career, usually through entertaining. dolly was both socially adept and politically savvy. so she could structure her entertained at such a way that she could lobby for her has been under the guise of entertaining. she said that it is very important to create a setting in the white house, almost like a
stage for her has been on the conduct of politics and diplomacy. >> now, president of on this nominee for secretary sally jewell testified on capitol hill about energy policy and land management. mr. was a mechanical engineer by training i misled the any sense 2005. this hearing is two hours 45 minutes. [inaudible conversations]
>> the committee will come to order. this morning, the committee meets to consider the nomination of sally jewell to be secretary of the interior with authorities ranging from managing national parks to offshore oil and gas development to protect fish and wildlife, serving as secretary of interior is almost like an extreme sport for multitaskers. we will hear this morning from sally jewell who knows a bit about multitasking from having been a petroleum engineer, a corporate ceo, a banker and conservationists. she will certainly need to draw on all of these experienced is to tackle multiple responsibilities as secretary of the interior.
probably the biggest challenge will be striking the right balance between the secretary's dual roles of both conserving and developing our resources. in the trade-off, as we talked about are complicated because we americans want to have it all. we want to have jobs and protect our scenic treasures and obviously that can be easier said than actually done. i also intend to discuss the fact that americans now spend $646 billion a year on outdoor recreation generating nearly $40 billion in federal tax revenues. the economics of public lands have changed in america. it has become a big jobs engine and will be good for our economy if it grows bigger.
we all understand jobs in america come from the private sector ended through the department we can look to come up with innovative fresh policy for job growth and protect the inner treasures, that will certainly be cared for her country. the former former ceo, ms. jewell's experience makes for especially well-positioned to address this issue of maxim magazine jobs created in revenues generated for taxpayers from recreation on public lands in the businesses supported. finally, my home state of oregon has no shortage of challenging resource issues. whether it is managing the checkerboard pattern of our land to get timber cut up, while protect in our environmental values, addressing the climate
ace and develop renewable energy of the oregon coast is planning to keep the secretary busy for the next four years. i realized that secretary cannot spend all your time focus solely on oregon issues anymore than i can as chairman of the committee and there's national issues that must be addressed. these include ensuring taxpayers manage the renewable and natural gas energy bill and to ensure it is done and the fire eventually responsible fashion and finding a long-term solution to provide resource dependent communities across the country, a fair share of the revenue from federal lands. from the last issue, our committee is going to be holding a hearing on the program fairly shortly. this program, when i authored with a former colleague has been
a lifeline from the communities across our country. the funding has expired last year in cash-strapped communities for deadlines later this spring to decide about retaining teachers whether or not to close schools, what to do about law enforcement and so many other basic services. i want to say as we look forward to that debate but a short-term extension is not a long-term solution for these communities. they've got to get our people back to work here but got to make sure we can increase the number of jobs and resource dependent communities, whether it's federal land and water. we believe that can be done consistent with protecting our environmental values. i certainly look forward to working with colleagues of both parties on this approach is is a broader revenue sharing effort that can provide state communities with the money
generated from resource extraction from nearby federal lands. so there's a host of challenges that await their next secretary and i'm particularly pleased menstrual is spending so much especially with this being a new position for ministry and four, she is spending a lot of time talking to elected officials of both political parties is very welcome. so ms. jewell, but the ultimate ranking minority or, senator murkowski. we're looking forward to hearing their plan of attacking these challenges in your vision for the future of the department. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. jewell, welcome to the committee. thank you for your willingness
to serve. i echo the comments about my appreciation for the time unit spent not only talking about listening. we all recognize that is so key, so important. i know there's many questions. we got a good round up in committee, so i get to the point of my opening comments. for the past several weeks, much of my time is spent focused out of the department of fish and wildlife service, a decision that's really rattled each of the court to put it simply. that will oppose a single lane and noncommercial use to the all weather airport of cold day. the reason we made this very simple road is equally simple.
and it is for the safety of human life, which is at risk. that doesn't give anyone injured or ill in much better chance of surviving, especially when the weather is far more severe than we might have seen in this region yesterday. ms. jewell, we discuss the issue in person last week, so not going to devote much of my time here today chewed out. what i will say is the issue should never reach your desk should he be confirmed. secretary salazar has stated he has a moral obligation to uphold the trust responsibility for american indians and alaska natives and i know that in your written statement, you provide one of your top priorities is in upholding the sacred trust responsibility to the native american and alaska native
communities. respect must be balance with respect for the refuge. it is my expectation secretary salazar will look into its heart and consider that for obligation and make the right decision to proceed it until that happens will stand as a prime role of federal overreach and the harm it can cause in the reality of his nearly all of us, those of us in the western state all hover an example of where we see that intrusion there. we are all aware of this are misguided federal restrictions or make it harder for local people to live, to be safe, to prosper and they cannot relate a lack of balance in the
department policies that should further, but too often ignored its mission to honor multiple uses of public lands. i would anticipate you're going to hear two main sets of concerns expressed today. the first will be as it relates to your variants and i like knowledge it is very important to have a background in energy development. i've enjoyed the conversation and understanding more of where you've come from. more recently on conservation. you do have less familiarity with public policy than many nominees for this position them at the issues where you have weight and, including the wild lands initiative aren't going to many. as a result this morning in it to convince us it will maintain for various missions and interests of the department of
the interior. by looking for you to demonstrate an understanding of the issues that face our state and your strong commitment to this multiple use. we need you to affirm public lands provide not just a playground for recreational and tcs. i support mass, the paychecks for energy producers, loggers, ranchers. the second set of concerns is based on broader discontent despite tremendous resources on federal lands, nearly all gains in energy production have occurred on state and private lands. notice two ics have replaced real offshore regulation. federal tracking proposals reversed the good work states are doing. we ranked dead last in the world in permitting projects and again turned to my home state for
every issue where we feel it were making progress. there's other areas where the department apparently fails to hear us. then he took enough legacy wells, land offenses two decades ago are some of the examples that come to my mind. i am looking forward to hearing more about your vision for department of interior. i will conclude many of the additional nomination of both interior and department of energy we have in the months ahead. thank you you look for it your testimony. >> thank you, senator murkowski. i look forward to working with you on most matters. ms. jewell, we have the oath in a number of business matters to take care of, but i note what a wonderful sight to see three talented residents from the pacific northwest have a united
states spiezio and senator murray has the task of putting together a budget and trying to juggle all of that today. i think at this point last senator murray and senator cantwell introduce mrs. jewell to the committee. we'll go forward with administering the oath of the brief questions and having your testimony. welcome. >> thank you, all the members of this committee. i'm so pleased to be here with senator cantwell to introduce sally jewell to this hearing. who will miss ken salazar of psilocybin elites, but i could not be happier the president has chosen sally jewell to replace him as interior secretary. i have met sally for many years and her unique background and experience make her the right person at the right time to be secretary of interior and it
does in her shoes from what we refer to is the better washington. sally will come to the interior at a difficult time, when there's immense challenges the terminus opportunities. for working hard to protect our environment and invest in technologies to meet energy demands. on the local level, sally will face a complex issue like tribal lands and rights, but i think of no one better prepared for this task than sally. asher she studied to become an engineer, sally left northwest for the office of oklahoma colorado where she learned about the energy sector from the inside out. from there she moved to the border and spent two decades in helping businesses grow and learning what it takes to succeed in the marketplace.
time and again, sally has broken the mold to take on tasks in male-dominated industries. when she joined recreational equipment inc. of his struggling but after eight years with sally a ceo, rei is thriving. finding that balance, navigating the business world while keeping rei's commitment perhaps better than anyone, sally knows business and the environment benefit wendler promoted national treasures. i rei, sustainability and responsibility makes sense for the environment and the company's bottom line. she's worked closely to help create the wilderness area and expand apart and environmental protections throughout our
state. she's worked with industry and environmentalists to expand opportunities throughout the northwest number towards permanently the islands which is a true gem in the state of washington. she's back crucial public-private partnerships that create jobs and support a groundbreaking programs to get young people involved in the outdoors. whether it's the northwestern mineral deposits in the southwest or oil reserves along the coastline, i'm confident sally will be their interior department for economic growth and a thriving environment go hand in hand. thank you, mr. chairman for allowing me to speak on behalf of sally today. i can tell all of the she's a gem from the northwest i know she'll do an outstanding job as interior secretary. >> were very pleased senator cantwell is here also. she's particularly knowledgeable
about economics and shares that interest with ms. jewell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's a pleasure to be here before this committee, sought to thank you and ranking member murkowski and it's great to introduce a longtime friend, sally jewell. i want to publicly anchor for her willingness to serve in this position nic or has and is here today and i think ms while because it goes without saying these are challenging a person who does the job, but family members as well. i also know how hard it is to meet the beautiful northwest and come to this washington. it's the kind of leadership sally represents that we need most in washington. senator murray said allinson it's a good word to describe sally jewell. not only should the ceo, she
also serves the university of washington and a nonpartisan national parks conservation association. she's been a waiter from oil fields of oklahoma to commercial banking to running rei the last eight years and has been a success at whatever she tackles. rei has grown enough in 77 new stores and boosted sales 62%. i think that kind of leadership at the department of interior. we know the interior department faces challenges on how to figure publicly and to the various legal challenges the department faces to modernizing your receipt, to thinking about climate and deepwater trilling citizen. if things they need to have someone who forge real solution.
having grown up in the state of washington for over 40% of our land is public land, i guarantee you she understands these western issues whether it's water rates, salmon recovery, understand the impact, wildlife or the importance of public access to hiking and hunting and fishing. i guarantee you sally jewell has read about these, been involved in organizations and try to provide a leadership role. i would also note to ranking member murkowski because i know how important a certain state of alaska that this nominee has had more experience dealing with alaska and a variety of ways than anyone since pickles served in this position 40 years ago. i am confident combining knowledge or training as an
engineer, sally will bring a pragmatic can-do world view to the management problem-solving challenges. science will be her compass, not an ideological bent. given the importance of the agencies and challenging mission , i'm especially excited to have someone with a business background, the science and engineering background at the department of interior. as a member of this committee, i appreciate the challenges i remember faces when it comes to the interior department. i too have some of those issues would like to ask about, too. i hope you will agree sally is the right person for this job. often time i followed her blog she climbed the highest not in antarctica. i guarantee you this woman knows
how to climb mountains. thank you, mr. chairman. and i hope people will support her nomination and fast approval as secretary interior. >> thank you for a hopeful statement and i'm pleased they can have you back on this side. i know you've got your hands full today and you can be excused and appreciate your coming. at this point, you are aware the rules apply to all nominees that they be sworn in connection with testimony. so if you would please stand and raise your right hand. do you solemnly cite the testimony you're about to give to the senate committee on energy and natural resources shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? ms. jewell, thank you. before you begin your statement,
ask three questions addressed to each nominee before the committee. the first is we appeal to appear before the committee and other cronies to represent commissions and respond to issues of concern to the congress? >> i will. >> are your personal holdings, and pessimistic account should a conflict of interest or create a conflict should he be confirmed and assumed the office nominated by the president? >> my investments and other interests have been reviewed by myself in the appropriate ethics counselors within the federal government. i've taken action to avoid conflicts of interest are there or not to my knowledge. >> given asset of the blind trust? >> i do not. >> we would like to introduce any family members here today. >> i like to introduce her husband, warren up almost 35 years. my children are hard at work and
my extended family is watching with great interest and i appreciate all of them for their love and support on this journey. >> very good. i know they are proud of you people recognize you to make her opening statement and colleagues have questions here in the committee. please proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. distinguished members of this committee. being the ceo was a pretty darn great job and i want to add thanks to my 11,000 colleagues for the hard work they've done to bring into everyday lives with her close to home or far away. there's no world that compares to say that i can assure you. i'm honored and thankful to president obama for nominating me to be secretary of the interior or is it deep humility i take the duties of this office. my earliest memories were asked
for in the forests and the national parks. not rainier, crater lake and i was so on the outdoors and have been ever since. my children will play we spent a lot of time a site together. i think we'll tell you any opportunity i have my insight into the outdoors and i hope we too can enjoy some time in the outdoors i do coarser time in this position. the crown jewels of our nation are our parks, forests, deserts, rivers and sea shores. they are places that tell stories of our diverse history, struggles, triumph and tragedy. it is through the wisdom of many congresses and presidents that we protected and celebrated assets recognizing deep and enduring values. public lands are also huge economic engine.
for energy development, grazing, logging, tourism, our lands and waters power our economy and create jobs. balance is absolutely critical. we have to be managed twice late. if confirmed always the best science available to harness economic attentional and reserving uses for current generations and future generations. to give a summary of my background as is noted in introductions, i began early on that oil and gas, before i graduate from college turns out senator murkowski and i have something in commonpromotes a certain elements of the alaska pipeline in the mid-70s. a graduate degree a degree in mechanical engineering and what to work for mobil oil first on the oldest oilfield squeezing
life for the production of the older wells and then move to denver, where i was in a position to see the economics of oil and gas from the scene filled in bakersfield and how you prioritize resources? technology has advanced since that time alone with a better understanding of the impact of what we do. the type of the northwest was strong for me and so i chose to move back to seattle. lauren and i went at him like such of the first job opportunity to become a resource expert for a local bank and a time when oil and gas was booming and many other industries are not. for 19 years i played my skills, learned as an engineer to thinking to work in west indian tribes. i was a late banker for a native corporation in moscow in the
arctic circle. i work with farmers and ranchers, manufacturers, real estate developers, mining companies and those involved in every element of natural resources. what i've learned in my 19 years of banking is a bit deeper for creativity, entrepreneurship and commit it not only to economic development but also supporting development of communities and care of their environment. the department of the interior has many challenges expressed, but many opportunities to address them. the deficiency may cut potential to shape our country for years to come. on energy, i have a commitment to the all of the above energy strategy. increasing production of both
traditional and renewable sources of energy on public lands come implementing innovative technologies and new frontiers of onshore and offshore to encourage those faith and responsible development of our resources. i also wonders and it's important to bring certainty and clarity to industry. they decide to note the rules are and they want predictability of hispanic investments that will power future. a conservation, waters and wildlife to make this place america the beautiful. generation of children growing up with a disconnected nature. a study on average children spend 53 hours a week in front of a screen of some sort and other studies over the 30 minutes a week and unstructured outside play. i know the department of the interior has an important role to play along with neighborhood prior to the vast lands of the
blm in 2016 to ensure open spaces, trails and parks are both accessible and relevant to all people from all backgrounds. on climate change, the president has made it clear there's an important issue. we experienced storms and droughts and floods and if confirmed at this position i look forward to tapping the vast scientific resources of the department of the interior like the u.s. geological survey and also the agencies to understand the impact of change. i secretary of the interior pledge to abide and uphold the principles of transparency and integrity to uphold our sacred
trust responsibility to american indians and alaska natives to the nation-to-nation relationship that has been so important for a to maintain its indian country. i will support the unique needs whether in the pacific or the caribbean and commit to making wise decisions about the use and conservation of resources with which we have been so blessed in this country of ours. i will look forward to working with this committee about with congress and stakeholders to bring my business background to bear in implementing the common sense solutions. mr. chairman and distinguished members of this committee, i humbly submit to you both take up the challenge and i look forward to taking your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. m4. we have so many senators here. i will just start a couple of
questions given how many senators are attending today. the first hearing they had in the committees on natural gas and i chose that for a reason have been both democrats and republicans because it seems to be if policymakers get natural gas riot, america can have it all. we can have more good paying jobs. we can have a cleaner environment with a broader renewable energy, innovation a new natural alternative. i wonder how you can help us advance that kind of creative policy and for example, one idea that has some potential would be for you all given the fact you natural gas development undeveloped to look at the
prospects of using those plans to advance best practices in terms of tracking and environmental issues. would that be the approach he would be open to in terms of trying to make sure as we look to get a natural gas policy right, we could also have you all play a key role in creative kinds of policies that help but think that balance? >> we are blessed with natural resources and natural gas is one of the most significant. i appreciate its properties. it is cleaner than some sources of fuel. it depends on its economic viability will operate in a world market. in terms of innovative technologies. it's been a while since i cracked a while. but the principles are all the
same. i believe there are ways we can lean into the resources and the bureau of land management in the u.s. geological survey to come up a safe and responsible race to develop resources in a way that helps support jobs as well as energy independence. >> you will find a great many people in the industry and environmental communities that will work on issues like the ones used touch on. for me ask you about revenue sharing, send me my colleagues from louisiana and alaska have talked about, but this has become a great national can earn because all over america, there are areas where there is federal land in federal waters. in all these communities, not much changes except the accent
when he said around the pacific then. they are all trying to find a way to get it jobs, protect treasures and not become ghost towns. that's what the great areas. we have to find common ground with respect to this issue. my question on this point to identify revenue soars for appropriately skilled legislation that would help us assist those states and communities with federal land and federal water, facing challenges that the land and water can't ovation kind. the question is, when she worked to try to find a revenue soars in order to help us put together a bipartisan proposal to respect to revenue sharing that could bring together communities where there is federal land federal
water. >> senator, i'd be delighted to work with members on that important proposal. as i met with a number of senators present here, i appreciate perspectives on revenue sharing and the importance of a strong economy and our communities that feel the impact as well as economics of oil and gas development and i think revenue sharing is clearly an topic that deserves attention from the department of the interior as well as this body. >> very good. senator murkowski. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your testimony and again the conversations many of us had this past week. there's been a lot of focus on the news as the nomination has
come forward. the focus has been on your interest as it relates to the conservation side, your involvement with organizations. obviously your leadership. there's been a great deal of coverage. the question what comfort or assurance can you give for the people of the state of alaska focused on the research side when it comes to the department of the interior's responsibility, those concerned with the federal nsu could be better sharing but i can take it to alaskans, can you tell the committee anything that might surprise their concern some of
your friends within the conservation community. >> there's no question a balance on the use of our lands. many people as you enjoy the outdoors jump in a car to get there. it requires fuel. many products are produced in some way or another with materials that derive from fossil fuels. so it's important we take a balanced approach to energy development and resource development with conservation and recreation. i don't think it is an either or. i think it is a both and. knowing the places we all collectively believe me to be set aside and attack did in the importance to our economy and communities of responsible development of resources. if you look at my back on from
the alaska pipeline to working with organizations on my name elements of oil and gas that i've had that kind of balanced did in my career and i look forward to bringing to that role. >> would it be safe to say you agree part of the mission on federal lands is to increase oil production? >> we're busted any resources and leaving it to domestic oil and gas production is an important part of the mission to land mention it, but also department of the interior. >> i hope you'd be willing to work with us in encouraging that aspect as we develop not only are oil and gas resources, we know we are blessed with amazing reserves and resources on federal lands. unfortunately haven't seen activity and action that they come out.
i hope you can see this is the picture up in the national petroleum reserve. these are lands that they are. this is a bit of an eyesore if you can see it from here, stub in the middle was discarded oil containers, all transfer vehicles that move through the air. i think you know the story here was not left by some wild cat. but i was left by the federal government. the federal government came in come the joke is over 100 different wells over the course of the past decade. the problem we've been dealing with is these have been left, not properly abandoned.
they are an eyesore to the land, a threat to animals they are. they are wondering when did these lands they claim to. i have been fighting for years to get elm to address this. last you a good clean fun well. they think they might get around to three in supposedly to give me a schedule as to how they address it. the question to you this morning is where you come in to not only working at the state of alaska, but ensuring the resources that they are because what we see are the real double standard. a producer will be held to a level if you don't clean that up, you are fined immediately, shut down, sad affair. when they come in and do something like this, apparently they can take unlimited time and
say we don't have the money for it. i'm asking for your commitment you will work with addressing the eyesore left by the federal government. >> senator, thanks for bringing that to my attention. the bureau of land management were doing some exploration to assess the national petroleum reserve in alaska and it's clear there's opportunities to address and i commit to working with you on this and with this committee and appropriators to ensure there are sufficient funds to the will to do job right. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator mentioned. >> i know you just said you support the all about energy policy. could she give an explanation in the mix you see today and how you intend to support that? >> senator, we are blessed as a
country with vast reserves of resources. cole and west virginia certainly important and i appreciate it has been a huge resource of the supporting electricity and continues to be such in our country and i include that in the all of the above strategy. leveraging technologies, carbon sequestration and other methods over time continue to make it a resource that is perhaps less impactful is also important. natural gas is another important resource. we also are blessed with many opportunities for renewable to solar energy in parts of her desert southwest to wind energy in different areas. it's my understanding the u.s. geological survey is doing a good job of understanding what bizarre because we can in fact
pursue those that have the greatest potential in this area is blessed with those resources. >> is it fair to say we have to use what we have been since tearing energy policies porter, that means everything we can do to be independent of foreign oil and resources clinics >> it's clear conflict around research the something we perhaps rather not have. >> to affirm cool display a large portion of our energy mix today, correct? there has to be a balance for the research dollars go? >> understand. >> okay. >> the buffer zone, i don't know if you're familiar with that. we've been waiting for are going to come from the department of the interior. i would like your definition, just what you consider a string to be.
>> i'm sure there's a technical definition. >> is a basically a water stream that flows 12 months a year? >> i was seeing the kind of definition of a stream. >> at their biggest problem we have right now. topography and west virginia and many mountain states, a drainage ditch is that what we consider a stream as khoisan has been trying to define. it almost shuts down our operations. i would hope to be considered so i can only cite to you you about it. >> i clearly have things to learn about definitions and i look forward to digging in and working with you. >> and also the blm and osm, with gone through that last year
there is a ruling and now they are not consolidated into one, but basically sharing services for efficiencies. do you have any intentions of changing a for keeping their missions up for it? >> scored the issues of the west are different than he is. it's important at time of purchase for you think efficiency. if confirmed i look forward to working with you to understanding issues around osm and blm and enable them to fully carry out their mission. >> i also understand he supported the cap-and-trade carbon tax. i could be wrong, but i read into that those who support a carbon tax. the cap-and-trade proposed through four years ago allowed wind and solar to participate in
a carbon tax, which is basically a financial distribution, which never produced any carbon. wonder what your thoughts on that might. >> senator, it is important for us as a country to balance. during difficult economic times a night as a president and administration have got no proposals on the table around this issue. the department of the interior won't be my role necessarily to be discussing this is more around the resources. so that's where i stand. >> the other thing prodded by the senator from alaska that when you luck at the amount of production on federal lands you would be responsible for has to kind on private land production has increased. it looks like the department of the interior was going a
different direction when it was a complete different direction and hopefully that's it's been asked. if you can find the balance to doing our share of cells private lands. >> production for public lands is important and i know this complexities in terms of how technologies have brought recovery on private lands to the forefront and certainly the ability to provide public lands to support. >> they have decline. >> public lands have declined. >> is a petroleum engineer for early in my career, generally the first time you chose the highest production and does decline over time. there's things you can do to enhance production and those are done with private lands.
i think you miss all of the above strategy will be in port to bring those chosen techniques to better. >> my time is my time is up. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations on your nomination. i have a couple questions about the work you've done on the conservation association vanessa npca. if any member since 2004. you've testified to for congress on behalf of the archivist nation and the paperwork to this committee explains to bobby the federal government on behalf of the organization. it advocates on behalf of the park service. this is the federal government supported policies across america out of work. it has sued the federal government to shut down coal-fired power plants and coal production in uranium
production. since he's been a member come your organization has sued the federal government in minimum of 59 times. worst of all, npca uses taxpayer dollars to fund lawsuits. taxpayer dollars but americans out of work. it is unsettling to many do you have a fundamental conflict of interest when it comes to leading department of the interior because many of these lawsuits or organization has filed against the government are still pending. for this reason, if confirmed you recuse yourself from implementing any legal settlements which npca any party to since 2004, recuse herself from participating in the settlement negotiations to rookeries yourself from participating in future settlement negotiations which npca is a party to. we do that?
>> senator, i am one of roughly 30 boardman errs. i have nothing to do with their litigation strategy. i play no role in anything they may do around litigation. only one board member engaged in that and that is litigation liaison. >> your vice chair of the board has had an active role. is your answer you will not recuse herself for has to go? >> to the extent these issues that come before the department of the interior that a patent engagement through npca would be to the ethics officials within the department to determine what a scope of involvement will be. tonight it burned to probably disclose to the public all payments made using taxpayer dollars to individuals and entities that sued the interior department beyond the organization you been vice chair. numbers of seats at taxpayers
have not had a good accounting. i has to be disclosed to the public payments using taxpayer dollars. we agree to do that? >> senator, i'm not aware of what requirements are or aren't nor what payments you refer to, whether it legal fees, so i have to work to the request. >> there hasn't been transparency promised by the administration when it comes to settlements. >> europeanization weighed in on a number of rulings that we talked earlier about tracking. your organization has weighed in on the blm hydraulic fracturing rule. many are concerned the rule push production off lands, costing state like mine thousands of
jobs, millions of dollars of revenue. it is unsettling that npca has called on the blm to expand the scope cost even more jobs. your organization has gone so far to make it even harder to explore. also weighing in on surface mines and protection role which would shut down coal production and you discuss that with senator mansion. given your leadership that npca, many believe you have will make it a mature organization has participated. if confirmed, will you recuse yourself from all the making in which npca, has participated? >> senator, i'm not aware of either issue. as i said before, should it
matter come before that involves the organization i would approach the counselors to determine what role i should take. >> in my final seconds, i didn't hear a yes or no answer to his question is do you support a carbon tax coming yes or no? >> mr. chairman, i'm out of time, would you like me to -- >> please do. >> senator, as i said in another mansion's question, a carbon tax is not something that would come before me as role of secretary of interior. the secretary has made it clear he is not pursuing an approach to carbon at this point carbon tax and if confirmed i will look forward to bringing my experience to bear as a set on multiple uses and in all of the
above strategy i would not be in a position to take a position on this issue. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> colleagues, on this point with respect to recusal matters and ethics rules, i believe midstream for has indicated she would comply with her committee and the ethics rules for the federal government on page 10 of her questioner for colleagues who would like to repeat that. senator heinrich coming your next. >> thank you. it's so nice to have another engineer in this building. is a rare event i am afraid to say. thank you for your awareness that are not just things to be balance, but can enhance each other. one of the most important tools
the executive branch has for these goals is the antiquities that. the historical culture resources on our nation's public lands in a new mexico we've seen the antiquities act used to preserve the greatest draws to a state. carlsbad canyon, choco canyon and carlsbad caverns, which has turn into national parks. my constituents have proposed rio grande near towson peaks outside of las cruces. both of these proposals have been they received overwhelming support not only from local residences come of it as mrs. and chambers of commerce
is. i want to ask you your thoughts has potential secretary on how you will or whether you will support the responsible use to work with local communities to protect america's crown jewels. >> thank you are a match senator. the antiquities act recognizing the importance of such areas as the grand canyon and statue of liberty have been presidents from the republican and democratic side and has been a very, very important avenue to recognizing things. you mentioned something very important and i'm committed to this is public input, how communities feel into 19 inappropriate way so it not a surprise. it is something during engagement and people in our
state by these places know that other than anybody else around the country. i look forward to working with any number of senators that they may have within their state. >> that's exactly why you see the phrase responsible use of the antiquities that because it is absolutely critical. so it's protecting our crown jewels. public lands in places like new mexico are in backyards, sometimes for hours. it's very new mexicans go to hike, hunt, fish, react with families to struggle with in recent years is true a number of places around the intermountain last is because public access.
there is literally no rights-of-way across to get to the public lands in some cases. this can be solved by land management working with private landowners for state land agencies commissioners to reopen public rights-of-way. land. land agencies aren't even aware what lands the public has lost access to and often don't have any cohesive plan to restore access or gain new access. the president's 2013 budget included 2.52 million blm to purchase access to federal land for hunting, fishing, recreational activities and other things we do. a secretary, will you ensure maintaining and expanding the core rights-of-way is a priority
for the department support continuation of the budget? >> senator, thanks for the question. in my most recent job making sure people have access to recreation is important, but also private property raise. i found over the course of my work with state to communities to private landowners and beyond their oftentimes getting people to the table which is what i've done to discuss the issues and come to common agreement. so i certainly recognize public lands for this purpose and look forward to working with you on issues like access and easements across private lands. planas there's a willing party.
>> one >> thank you for joining us. bolts will use the principle that it's become more or less synonymous with public land management policy and the federal level is a fundamental concept of broad-based concept design to ensure our federal public land will be made open and available for different uses including recreation, mineral extraction, energy development so for. we support the principle of multiple use? >> has come a senator. my career reflects multiple use in a variety of ways. >> in your opinion, if uses a federal land such as grazing were phased out by the implementation of rules and regulations, without really be any different than preventing those very same federal lands? >> senator, it is important to understand which are dealing
with in specific circumstances. >> as a general matter, if possible to face those out three more subtle implementation of policies sometimes have side effects, right? >> i'm not sure but that specifics, it is important to know the uses of the land, what are the impacts of his uses, what is the science behind it? 3ring the parties together in a bring the parties together in a room to assess the impacts in a variety of different ways. >> you would agree federal land management policy had to focus on preserving multiple use to the max on degree possible in the eroding of? >> i'm not sure. multiple uses are important. multiple uses in the grand canyon is a national part and it's got its primary use in
areas of gas production or my name is primary use and it's important to look at things to understand his uses and respect them for their value to the region and our nation. >> okay. the federal government owns 60 to 50 million acres of land in the united states. the overwhelming majority will be under your jurisdiction for the bureau of land management. so this total land mass that is federally owned is about 30% of the united states. half of it or so is located in the western united states. in every state east of the rocky mountains can the federal government is 50% or less. and every state racking up the rest of us 50 more. in states like mine, two thirds
of our land. the land ownership does have benefits for american people everywhere regardless of where they live. people enjoy visiting national parks. they benefit in different ways at different land designations we have. there's also an economic impact. perhaps the most significant is the fact federal public land cannot be taxed by state and local governments. land authorities are unable to tax it. in order to offset, a program called payment in lieu of taxes considering the whole purpose of the program is to offset losses in property tax revenue to the local taxing jurisdictions. would you agree payments should be of some way roughly equivalent to the revenues that
would otherwise be flowing into these jurisdictions before the federal land ownership? >> the issue is more complex than a simple answer. i know there are vast tracts of land sparsely populated. i do appreciate it is important that a tax base that there'd be appropriate support for this communities to thrive. in some cases has resigned chairman wyden brought up how to recreation of a $646 billion industry, some of those communities may enjoy those benefits. ..
are confirmed with two very close people in my life, my good friend. congratulations for the assignment you are about to undertake. you have a wide range of challenges facing you from the financial park service to how we designate wilderness and energy development and public lands and the ongoing study which is very important. in that spirit, i would like to focus on a few overarching issues. let me start with the land and water conservation fund. it has been chronically underfunded since its creation 50 years ago and additionally it will expire in 2015. can could i get your commitment to work with me for the program? >> yes, this has been critical
in every part of the country common in terms of recreation and i think it was a brilliant piece of legislation when it was enacted in 1964. i look forward to working alongside you to supported in the future. >> let me jump to recreation in the context of a balanced approach. a character is content characterizes the service and in colorado you know that we have a study that shows 125,000 jobs are supported and about $13 billion a year in revenue. you know that this is very well. i am curious on your views as to how we ensure that when managing landscapes, reviewing permits that were maintaining an
appropriate balance of uses. specifically how would you balance the needs like hunters and anglers and hikers with major event like bike races? >> senator, thank you for the question. we serve a wide variety of people, and as such, we run into people that have different views on how public lands should be used. throughout my business can rear i have been a convener of people with different interests to help them work those differences out in a room so that we can balance the multiple uses that are there. whether hunters or anglers or mountain bikers, and development companies and others, it is important that we get the people to work together to found common ground. over the course of my business
experience, i have found reasonable people want to work together to find common solutions. a lot of that is understanding where each other is coming from. certainly committed if confirmed to the role to better understand the issues. >> let me move to your business background. you have tremendous business background. if you think about usa inc., you will head one of the most important divisions. can you talk about how you have been prepared to be the secretary of the interior and how you make decisions? you have alluded to this already, but i wanted to give you a little bit more time to do so as well. >> government is different, senator, i need to learn some of those things from the private sector. but i do know that there are many similarities.
where we going in the future and how do we lean into those resources as necessary. and what is that from the past that needs to be changed? i look forward to getting to know the vast resources of the department of the interior and the various agencies to understand where are those opportunities and synergies and where are the need to invest in the future in order to make sure that we are addressing the big challenges that we face. that is the kind of approach that i will bring to this. it is getting a lot of information, but i'm certainly not afraid of making a decision when it needs to be made. >> yes, you have been a great support and i appreciate it. snowfall this year has been less than average and we are very concerned. could you talk about your
perspective on inner agency coordination and discuss whether the department is adequately prepared for the wild pfizer season? >> there is no question as to whether they have major wildfire issues and i think it's very important that the agencies cooperate together. i did get a chance to sit down with secretary vilsack and we talked about wildfires in preparation for them and i look forward to that coming up with a rational solution to try to get ahead of that and work together i think it's going to be critically important to us. as far as readiness goes,. >> thank you i know my time has
expired, but i would like to associate myself with the importance of this and i will work forward with you to make sure that funding is provided. thank you for your willingness to serve our country. >> we are going to break for 10 minutes. when we come back, we will open with questions from senator scott. >> okay, sally jewell, senator scott is up next.
>> the president has nominated you for being a good steward of the land and this administration has obstructed access to billions of barrels of oil. >> they have given us backward on the development of a chilly in barrels of the green belt through wyoming. the destruction of the keystone pipeline will bring up to 800 30,000 barrels of oil from canada to the gulf coast refineries. what will you do to change this in ensuring access with fast natural resources. >> thank you for the question.
i do believe in the above energy strategy. and that is, as i have expressed, all of the natural resources and they are bastrop in this country i will work along federal land managers under my jurisdiction to ensure that we are probably leaning into those resources and bringing the best available science and developing them in a safe and responsible way. >> it seems that the all of the above tragedy has not affected us very much. how would we change that under your leadership? >> senator, we are blessed with tremendous natural resources.
it enables us to draw more from the formations that we have and some of the private lands are now more economic for new technologies. the secretary of the department of the interior, i look forward to working with the u.s. geological survey to see how we can support the kind of development that has been responsible. >> i would take that as you would explore this as an approach when feasible? >> i would say a balanced approach. the economics, the federal government and private companies
are interested wanted it is in their economic best interest and typically the public market and the prices are also very important. >> resource estimates are estimated with a lack of data. the industry has developed this, technically recoverable resources around 3 billion barrels of oil or natural gas. in the collection of data in these areas, particularly part of the atlantic. >> senator, i appreciate and i
am supportive of the work of the u.s. geological survey done has been done on the resources of the ocs that we understand those resources and can work alongside the state and federal lands to explore the development of appropriate. >> the leasing plan excludes this. how would you approach the next leasing plan -- how would you approach it with respect to waters off the coast of south carolina? >> i do understand from speaking with the people of the department that there is workplan to better understand the resources off the atlantic coast so that the next time a five-year plan is considered
that they can be considered within a plan. so i'm assuming that that includes the atlantic coast but i am not familiar with the area they are suffering. >> senator cantwell? >> thank you, mr. chairman i was thinking about i was reminded of the quote of gerald o'hara in gone with the wind the only thing worth working for, worth fighting for and dying for, because land is the only thing that lasts. if you hear a lot of passion it is because everyone is concerned about the land and what lasts and how we deal with it. so we appreciate your willingness to do this job. i remember when the interior secretary norton was nominated, there were a lot of questions about involvement in the legal
foundation, a conservative foundation the federal government for many issues. and endangered species act, so i think that there was a key member of this organization. so i summoned up to what the supreme court said that litigation was part of this political expression. but i wanted to ask more specifically to the indian affairs committee to ask questions. i wanted to get your comments on the bureau of indian affairs which is part of your responsibility and whether you would commit to protecting your research decisions.
i am fully committed to upholding the sacred trust responsibilities that we have two indian tribes and indian nations and the relationship that we have. i know this is in the important part of the department of interior and we will be working closely together with your role on that committee and certainly very interested in becoming more steepen those issues and it has come up across the board and almost every one of my meetings with the senator so far. so look forward to taking this role extremely serious senator barrasso and i both have an interest in how to increase energy production on tribal land. and that is to voter legislation that was passed and i think it wasn't properly implemented.
so i wanted to get your thoughts on that issue and increasing energy as well as the diversity of renewable energy on public lands. could you give us your thoughts on that. >> sometimes are blessed with natural resources and i think that leaning into those resources to help economically, as well as the country by finding sources of energy development are really important. i know there have been issues with the bureau of land management and furthering the development. the renewable energy, i am very pleased to hear about the work happening across the country on identifying those areas that
have the highest potential so we can apply some of the things we have learned to the renewables as well, finding the places of highest potential and working with industry partners to develop those resources and i look forward to digging into that as well. >> i think this is something that the secretary has made great progress on. but we hope with your leadership to make much more progress and applying some of that resource extraction. it is about great potential across the country. >> thank you, senator cantwell. next is senator alexander. >> looking at your resume, i figure you have worked on the
alaska pipeline and that you are an oil and gas engineer and he said that you have actually fact a gas well? >> yes, i have. >> you are a thinker for 19 years? >> yes. >> chief officer of a billion dollar company? >> yes, sir. >> how did you get appointed for this administration. [laughter] >> i thought you were going to say that you can't hold a job. [laughter] that is a remarkable background. have you been to the great smoky mountains national park? >> yes, i have. i've enjoyed hikes in the woods and talking with rangers about the challenges with the hemlocks. >> have you noticed that economic impact? >> yes, there was a lot of economic activity, it was a bit of a shock.
i went out the quietly. certainly the great smoky is are an enormous driver for that reason. >> are you aware that the great smoky is visit the great smokies every year? >> yes, i am aware and i think it's a great illustration of the importance of public lands. >> and that is more than twice as many that visit the grand canyon in yosemite national park. >> yes, sir. >> are you aware that the federal transportation, no matter how remarkable they may be, it is more than the federal appropriation for the great smoky mountains national park? >> i am not familiar with that, but i certainly will become familiar. >> will seem reasonable to you that it might be a park that has
twice as many visitors as any other park would have federal appropriation that would be at least the same as other important national parks? >> senator, i appreciate the value of the great smokies and i appreciate that you support our parks in a way that is sustainable. and what is the budget money used for. so i think that i would need to look into that. >> i don't want to diminish this. the people gave the great smokies to the federal government. as a result of that, not only do
we get federal appropriation, but we don't get the map. so we have an amount of this has been involved with the great smokies and volunteer activities. do you know anything about that? >> there is a lot of work to bring private resources into our parks system and the great, great parks are alleviated somewhat with volunteer support. >> were you -- you were a part of the commission to look at the national parks. what was the involvement of the sponsoring that? >> it was a convener along with other organizations like the national geographic society.
both sides of the political aisle, including senator portman who has stepped out for a moment, shaping the future of the national parks in the next century. >> you are a member of the board of the university of washington. is that correct? yes, sir. >> are you familiar with a record of their football team? >> unfortunately i am, sir. >> is that your fall? >> completely. i accept oversight ability and i think the football team will be better. >> okay, that's good. [laughter] >> the obama administration is very interested in wind power. would you agree that there are some places where giant wind turbines might be inappropriate and that one of those regions might be a scenic mountain tops of the eastern united states, such as along the foothills of
the great smokies or the blue ridge mountains of virginia? >> senator, there is no doubt that when we look at all sources of energy, that we have to look at the impact and the history and culture of those regions and bring people around the table to make sure that there is support for the kind of projects that we are doing. >> my time is up, but i believe in saving mountaintops and i'm not in favor of blowing them up. or putting giant wind turbines that you can see for 20 miles. so i hope he would keep that in mind as you develop policies to encourage the appropriate policing of those energy facilities. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank my colleague. i wish them well. >> you have been doing well.
>> senator johnson is the next. >> we have seen drastic cut for drinking supply projects. we got recent budget requests with inflation, and the deal are had acknowledged in a report last july that it will confirm these projects in these already authorized projects are a high priority in this case. enact thank you for the
question, senator. there are some of my colleagues in neighboring states that have the same concerns and i appreciate the water is a very significant issue. talking about your colleagues, i know that these are very important issues. and i appreciate that we cannot do some of these things without appropriation and i look forward to encouraging our appropriators to get this water moved to the critical communities that need it. >> would you urge the omb to do the same? >> yes, sir, i will advocate for
conservation areas. like the dakota grasslands conservation projects. >> are there additional ways that we can fund conservation programs? >> thank you, senator. at the german talked about this, $646 billion of economic activity on public lands, certainly in the dakotas, it is a very important part of the economy there.
we have an opportunity to meet with the caucus and talk about these issues and i appreciate that many of our hunting and fishing organizations are very critical players in identifying habitat and working with private land owners and public land owners to understand effectively managing it for ongoing sportsman activities. i would look forward to winning into those critical partners, as well as the resources at the department of interior and local states to identify and support funding for these resources. land and water conservation is a part of that. and i look forward to the continued support and funding it at a higher level than what we have had over the past. >> as you know, dropout ra